A Parent-Child Complex
While the election of Tony Abbott as leader of Australia's opposition Liberal Party has more to do with climate change than republicanism, the supporters of the monarchy in both Australia and New Zealand seem to be very much buoyed by the election of a monarchist. Irrespective of whether Abbott can win at the next federal election - and it looks unlikely - his views on why Australia should keep the monarchy are worth scrutiny.
Abbott argues that being a monarchy is as natural as "respecting your parents", which is a strange metaphor to use when you think about it. Supporters of a republic usually speak of "growing up" and "leaving home", comparing the act of becoming a republic to the process of national maturity into adulthood. Like leaving home, it is slightly threatening to some, but once you've done it it's not as bad as people might say. Most republicans would say there's nothing incompatible with growing up and continuing to respect our "parents". Arguably, our parents want us to grow up, and not mope around the house all day.
Abbott's view seems to be that to create an Australian head of state is to show disrespect to generations that have gone before, guessing that their preservation of the monarchy was an endorsement of it. But it's only really since the reign of Elizabeth II that the monarchy has attempted to court popular support.
Abbott argues that being a monarchy is as natural as "respecting your parents", which is a strange metaphor to use when you think about it. Supporters of a republic usually speak of "growing up" and "leaving home", comparing the act of becoming a republic to the process of national maturity into adulthood. Like leaving home, it is slightly threatening to some, but once you've done it it's not as bad as people might say. Most republicans would say there's nothing incompatible with growing up and continuing to respect our "parents". Arguably, our parents want us to grow up, and not mope around the house all day.
Abbott's view seems to be that to create an Australian head of state is to show disrespect to generations that have gone before, guessing that their preservation of the monarchy was an endorsement of it. But it's only really since the reign of Elizabeth II that the monarchy has attempted to court popular support.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Comments
The comment suggested that Australia has grown up and left home as it is an independent sovereign state, but has retained the Queen as its head of state in the same way as your parents are still your parents when you've flown the nest, and still has the Union Flag as part of its own flag in the same way as your surname doesn't change when you leave home.
Obviously the flag issue is a separate debate, whether you're talking about Aus or NZ, but I would imagine that comment is one which many monarchists in either country would wholeheartedly concur with and preach themselves; and the problem is that although the logic is flawed, it's a much more coherent and thus potentially more powerful argument than any anti-politician rhetoric, let alone anti-Irish ranting. How best to counter it then? An obvious starting point would be to argue that whereas when you leave home your parents no longer have authority over you, the Queen is still legally Aus' & NZ's head of state, even if her authority is exercised exclusively by her Governors-General acting on the advice of Aus & NZ ministers, which somewhat distorts the comparison, but doesn't seem to completely kill off the argument. One way to do that might be to point out that, by the latter half of the 20th Century, the final step towards a person in Western society gaining full independence from their parents - often after they'd left home - was when they got married, which for women meant their surnames did change (and still do legally even if attitudes are more flexible), and that countries are traditionally spoken of in the feminine gender. The problem there, of course, is that neither Aus nor NZ marked their independence from Britain by merging with each other or with any other country, meaning the marriage analogy is not watertight.
Thoughts please.
I would suggest that if Britain (the parent ) remained a pre-eminent power in the world then its children ( the "settler" colonies of Canada, Australia, NZ) would have stayed closer to the family nest for protection and succour. Possibly a British Commonwealth would have become like the EU without the same cultural clashes.
The Americans made no secret of the fact that they wanted imperial trade preferences, the sterling area and the empire in general to be disbanded (so that they could dominate the constituent countries politically and economically -which they have done.)
So waiting until Britian was economically exhausted during WWII the Americans stepped in, saved the day and picked up the pieces of the empire. As a result Canada and Australia and Britain too are part of the American "Empire". So all the squabbling over whether we have monarchs is redundant as the real power behind these thrones is Uncle Sam. We have no proud parent anymore because Uncle Sam moved in and made mother England act as its housekeeper!
Oh yeah, and de facto NZ has become like the third largest (and basket case) state of Australia. Just look at Key and english waiting for Australia's budget before they can formulate New Zealand's.
His address highlights the sentimentality of Monarchist support. His last comment provides the insight:
"I feel instinctively totally committed to the Monarchy and I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would be persuaded that it is in Australia's interests to change".
He has closed his mind to all arguments. It doesn't matter what anyone says he needs to hold on to his own particular view of Australian history in order to make sense of his own story. Supporting the Monarchy he says is "as right as not lightly changing your football team"
He never once says 'I think' because he really hasn't thought about it. He admits he doesn't "love every aspect" of the monarchy but he can't quite let go of his Anglophilia. Lewis is right. With Abbott at the helm of the liberal party things can only get better.
Post new comment